Blog Ekkehard Friebe

Nachstehend bringe ich einen Beitrag aus „The General Science Journal„ mit dem Titel:

An Analysis of Big Bang Theory as a Work of Fiction

By Sunil Thakur

Zitat:

I desperately tried to analyze big bang theory as a theory of physics that supposedly explains the process through which universe was created. The theory makes so many assumptions without explaining the scientific logic behind such assumptions that we have no choice but to treat it as a work of fiction. In fact, even a good work of fiction is supposed to have logical sequences and a good fiction writer takes great pains to logically explain the behavior of its characters. Even though big bang theory does not even qualify to be a good work of fiction yet it needs to be analyzed because many of us believe that it logically explains how the universe was created.

Let us examine the cosmological model as well as big bang theory.

Big bang theory suggests that universe is expanding with the space. The FLRW matric suggests that if we have all objects plotted on a grid then expansion has to be explained through the expansion of grids. The objects remain at same coordinates or same grids and the number of grids remain the same but the area covered by each gird increases and hence the distance between each grid increases too.

This proposal assumes that space and universe (matter) are two different entities but as mentioned earlier, anyone who understands a bit of general relativity knows that as per general relativity, objects are mere spacetime structures.

FLRW matric assumes that galaxy is an object but we know that galaxy is merely a combination of several stars with huge spaces between them and hence with the kind of expansion of the grids suggested by the matric, instead of galaxies moving away from each other, the stars within every galaxy should move away from each other. If expansion of space is uniform in all directions then such uniformity must be seen in all structures and not just universe in general. We do not see galaxies expanding in size, we see the distances between galaxies increasing. This means that the distance between the grids in increasing while grids themselves must not expand. What we observe is quite opposite to what FLRW matric suggests.

Mass and volume are not the physical entities themselves but are the properties of the physical entities. Therefore, mass and volume cannot increase unless there is a corresponding increase in the energy of the universe. Since there is no doubt about the validity of the first law of thermodynamics therefore it is obvious that volume of the universe can neither increase nor decrease.

We are not sure whether the density of the universe is 1, is more than one, or is less than one. Nothing in the universe, including the density is same at all points because distribution of matter is not equal across the space. Temperature of the universe varies at different points and so does density. There are placed where density of the space is higher than the average density of the universe and there are spaced where density is lower than the average density of the universe. Average density of the universe has to be one and universe must expand at the places where density is more than one and universe must contract at places where density of the universe is less than one. CMBR anisotropies gives good indication of these areas where density variations exist. Universe is moving towards the absolute zero and this temperature will be achieved when energy distribution across the universe will be equal and hence density will be same across the universe.

This analysis rules out the possibility of metric expansion of the universe.

Let us examine the suggestion that in the first few days universe was in perfect thermal equilibrium.

To know the magnitude of the ‚few‘ and to know the meaning of the ‚day‘ when there was neither the earth nor the sun, we have to make lots of assumptions. Considering that day means 24 hours of time as per our present day clock, we need to account for the expansion of time. Due to the lack of any definitive statement, we can not examine this proposal scientifically. A scientific theory must explain the number of days esp. when it can make predictions about the events in the first 10^-37 seconds of the universe and makes more definitive statements about the events after 10^-11 seconds.

If cooling down of the universe is being attributed to the expansion then universe cannot be in thermal equilibrium after a few days unless the matter was distributed equally in the universe and temperature of the universe was constant for a few days which means there was no expansion of the universe. Once again this proposal contradicts theory’s own proposal that universe is expanding constantly. If matter was distributed equally in the universe even after a few days then we cannot explain emergence of large scale structures.

Big bang theory suggests that baryons were formed at around 10^-6 seconds as the temperature of the universe had reduced considerably and hence protons-antiprotons were not being created. Experimental evidence do not suggest that particle-antiparticle pairs are not formed below a critical temperature level. Moreover, we have to assume that at temperatures above the critical level, the pairs were constantly being created and were getting annihilated and therefore theory must predict a gradual increase in the protons and neutrons.

(Zitatende)

Lesen Sie bitte hier weiter!

Beste Grüße Ekkehard Friebe